I9I2.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 311 



not otherwise valid; or do they pledge the faith of the United States to pass 

 acts which shall ratify and confirm them? 



" A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations, not a legis- 

 lative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accom- 

 plished; especially so far as its operation is intra-territorial ; but is carried 

 into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the 

 instrument. 



" In the United States a different principle is established. Our Consti- 

 tution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be 

 regarded in Courts of Justice as equivalent to an Act of the Legislature, 

 whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. 

 But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the 

 parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the 

 political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the 

 contract before it can become a rule for the Court. 



" The article under consideration does not declare that all the grants 

 made by his Catholic Majesty before the 24th day of January, 1818, shall be 

 valid to the same extent as if the ceded territories had remained under his 

 dominion. It does not say that those grants are hereby confirmed. Had such 

 been its language, it could have acted directly on the subject, and would have 

 repealed those Acts of Congress which were repugnant to it ; but its language 

 is that the grants shall be ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession, 

 etc. By whom shall they be ratified and confirmed? This seems to be the 

 language of contract; and if it is, the ratification and confirmation which are 

 promised must be the Act of the Legislature. Until such Act shall be 

 passed, the Court is not at liberty to disregard the existing laws on the 

 subject.""' 



A decree was therefore entered adverse to the title of the plaintiff. 

 This case constitutes, therefore, a decision, first, that treaties 

 must, if properly worded to convey such intention, " be regarded in 

 Courts of Justice as equivalent to an act of the Legislature " ; sec- 

 ondly, that they may, however, '' import a contract only " ; thirdly, 

 that in the case at bar, the language used required Congress to exe- 

 cute the contract by the passage of an act before it could become 

 a rule for the Court. There is nothing of the nature of obiter dicta 

 in the decision of the Court. The grounds of the decision are ex- 

 pressly stated. It is, moreover, worthy of note that in the argu- 

 ments of counsel the interpretation given in the court's opinion to 

 Article VI. of the Constitution is assumed by counsel — one of whom 

 was Mr. Webster — to whose interest it would have been to argue 

 that the treaty " must be sanctioned by an Act of Congress " to 



•"Mbid., pp. 314-5. 



